The park home industry representatives have been compelled periodically to broadcast to the nation, in response to serious criticisms from the residents; the most recent being late July and early August (2007) on ‘You and Yours’ and ‘Face the Facts’, both on Radio 4. Judge the current “promises” by the BH&HPA (see elsewhere on this website) with those made by the same person in the past.
Around the time of her appointment as Director General of the British Holiday & Home Parks Association, Ros Pritchard was asked for her reaction to problems raised, also broadcast on Radio 4. Her response was first to praise a flawed Government study which claimed 92% of park homeowners were satisfied, some even “ecstatic”. Challenged she accepted there were “bad apples” in her flock of members, and claimed that “nobody but the industry has got a better interest in getting things sorted”. She went on to say: “You don’t need a change in the current law. As an industry, we want the cowboys drummed out. We can do without our reputation being dragged through the mire”. When it was suggested the BH&HPA should act as a watchdog, and expel members, Mrs. Pritchard claimed: “that happens…. We do drum members out of membership when they’re seen to bring the industry into disrepute”. Many have, so where’s the evidence they’re no longer members, one wonders?
Hilton Dawson, then an MP, and Chair of the All Party Working Group, said he acknowledged there were “a great number across the country” of residents suffering at the hands of unscrupulous park owners. He felt the way forward was that the legislation needed “radical reform” and felt we should “stop talking about caravans and mobile homes, and become fully into the realms of housing legislation”. But Mrs. Pritchard did not completely accept this move; instead, wanting balance. (As we have come to expect, in favour of the industry. Mr. Dawson underlined the fact that “there are serious loopholes in the law” (which latest changes have made worse). He felt the BH&HPA “were underestimating the size of the problem”. He went on: “ I wouldn’t really place too much reliance on the research that Ros quoted, which seems to belay the experience of so many people. If the BH&HPA really are committed to a park home industry with a future….. then they should be facing up to the real difficulties of the present law, and supporting my call, and the call of many others for fairly radical change”.
Fast forward to ‘You and Yours’ on 3rd January 2003 where Mrs. Pritchard now accepts new laws might help clamp down on rogue manager’s, but says “existing legislation needs to be better enforced”. PHRAA would agree with her remark: “if we don’t have enforcement, then new legislation wont solve the problem”. THEN WHY DID THEY ASK THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE MERE GUIDELINES in places, which are to law like the Highway Code is to boy racers? Crucially, the programmme narrator stated quite clearly that; “the Government had promised to introduce a fit and proper person criteria to cover all new park owners and managers” Exactly what PHRAA had requested, but it came to nothing. It doesn’t take much working out why the industry objected to that, does it?
But now, years later, Ros Pritchard paints a different picture. Most notably, that her membership “only plan for replacement of new homes every 30 – 40 years”! Suddenly, it semms, the industry can wait that long to drive you out, without harming the lining of their pockets. Again, reference was made to a Government ‘study’. This time, on the economics. As stated elsewhere, knowing what this was all about, and how it was to be used to advantage, one can make figures say anything, PHRAA having seen some of the submissions, can vouch that this data cannot be relied upon to give a true assessment of the profitability of the industry, to warrant the demands being made.
Sidestepping the obvious interpretation by the membership to her own statement, lodged with Companies House, that; “where the burden of regulation cannot be avoided, the BH&HPA endeavours to ensure that enforcement is with the lightest possible touch”. Instead , making matters more serious, that this was intended instead to lighten the load of Health & Safety, Taxation and Employment Regulation! How else can one read that, but having such scant regard to it? Finally, though, Mrs. Ros Pritchard has told some 3 million listeners to the latest programme that she “would absolutely confirm that we would like to see this regulation enforced”. That is, in her words, “ high profile prosecution of the rogues”. Well, We got there in the end. Or have we? Who is going to pay for the Court costs of the residents? How many 70/80/90 year olds are going to run into Court against her members anyway? And if they lose…..?
Since one of her members’ court cases has already caused a 79 year old to be made bankrupt by crippling Legal Costs against him defending his right to remain in his own home and, as I write this today, now received a recorded delivery letter announcing a further court procedure for the possession of his pitch, perhaps Mrs. Pritchard can assist in such regulation having the “lightest possible touch” applicable to a resident for a change?
Compiled for PHRAA by Colin Packman. President. August 2007.
